The ‘Site off Posbrook Lane’ trundles on unfortunately with Foreman Homes determined to ignore Local Authority planners, Planning Inspectors and Village opinion to the bitter end.
Let’s go over the history :
1: Foreman Homes put in a planning application for 150 homes on the field off Posbrook Lane that abuts Bellfield and Barn Close. The Application is refused by Fareham Planners
2: Foreman Homes appeal this decision
3: An Inquiry is held and the Planning Inspector refuses the application.
4: Foreman Homes put in another planning application for the same site but this time for just 50 houses.
5: Fareham Planning Officers indicate they will be recommending refusal.
6: Foreman Homes state that the decision was not made within the required time period and say they will appeal. They were aware that the officers would be recommending refusal however, and that is just what happened. The committee refused the application.
This means that once again the Planning Inspectorate, which is an independent from government body, will be asked to consider the new application for 50 homes.
To be frank the reason for the delay is obvious and even Foreman Homes cannot ignore what has been happening over the last 5 months!
F.B.C. have always been against developing this site and confirm their opposition to any development along the ‘Meon Valley Strategic Gap’ in the newly adopted local plan. While at the same time indicating just how they will fulfil their obligations under current government planning regulations.
Once the inspector has been appointed all those who wrote in with comments to F.B.C. on the new application will be informed and asked if they wish to make comments to the inspector. Their original comments will also be forwarded to the inspector.
It is perhaps worth recalling just why the inquiry inspector refused permission for the 150 houses in the original application.
‘I have concluded that the proposal would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area, which is a valued landscape, to the setting of two Grade II* listed buildings and a minor adverse effect on best and most versatile agricultural land in the area.
On this basis the proposal would conflict with policy CS14, CS22 in the LPP1 and DSP5, DSP6 in the LPP2’.
LPP1 and LPP2 refer to F.B. C’s. Local Planning Policy parts 1 and 2.
(In terms of LPP1 policy CS14 seeks to control development outside defined settlement boundaries seeking to resist proposals which would adversely affect its landscape character and function. While policy CS22 advises land within strategic gaps will be treated as countryside and development proposals will not be permitted where it affects the integrity of the gap and the physical and visual separation of settlements.
In LPP2 Policy DSP6 further advises in respect of residential development outside of defined urban settlement boundaries that it should avoid a detrimental impact on the character or landscape of the surrounding area. DSP5 addresses the protection and enhancement of the historic environment. In considering the impacts of proposals that affect designated heritage assets it advises the Council will give great weight to their conservation and that any harm or loss will require clear and convincing justification, reflecting the statutory and national policy positions.)
‘The appeal site is located where there is potential for a significant effect on a number of European designated wildlife sites which comprise Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) potential Special Protection Areas (pSPAs) and Ramsar sites.’
In our submission to FBC we stated :
‘It is, to quote your own view from the Local Plan consultation, ‘a very
important landscape and any proposed new housing would have a negative impact.’
Keeping the Meon Valley strategic gap as a development free zone is vital in retaining the integrity of the 2 adjacent conservation areas of the Village of Titchfield and Titchfield Abbey.
Indeed the local plan suggests that at some time this gap has the potential to become greenbelt as the only open space between Southampton and Portsmouth along the A27. It is vital to retain this space to prevent coalescence between adjacent developments in Stubbington, Warsash and Park Gate.’
Foreman Homes should not be allowed to encroach in any way on this gap. Fareham already have a robust plan for housing development within the borough including provision for 400 or so dwellings alongside the A27 at the nearby Segensworth roundabout.
All of the comments made by the inspector hold good whether they be for 150 houses or 57. This is a green space that should remain green.
Please look out for the request to submit comments to the Inspector.